Wikipedia:Peer review/Structural engineering/archive1

Structural engineering

I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a huge amount of work on it, and think it is now pretty comprehensive, and it would be good to get the opinion on others on what further work might be needed.

Thanks, Tkn20 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

• It's a great start. Since it's a technical topic, work to make sure most technical terms can be understood through the context of the sentence. For example in the plastic and elastic sections, what's the difference? 1) The lead section does give a good introduction to the topic, so I hate to say it, but it doesn't really properly summarize the entire article which a good lead section should do. See WP:LEAD. In this case you don't need to describe each of the materials for example in the lead and can stay closer to the type of lead you have, but it does need to summarize the article. 2) The most difficult part will be that the bulleted lists need to be converted to prose. I know it's really hard to think of how to do that once they have been started as bulleted lists, but you'll find once it's done and properly works together as prose, it's a much better encyclopedia article. 3) The picture of the Segovia aqueduct is a great addition but it's blurry. I'd have to image we have clearer pictures of that aqueduct or similar ones on commons somewhere. Also there are too many images in general. While this topic definitely lends itself to a bit more than the usual number, it should still be held down to about one per subsection that best illustrates the idea at hand. 4) The short subsections in 'Structural elements' should probably be just merged into one section. As they are they are stubby sections and if you expanded them the article would be too long. You have to prioritize space in the article based on what's most important to the overall topic. - Taxman ^Talk 16:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• From what I read this article is starting to take shape as a really good article. I made a few adjustments however only got up to the history section before I stopped. Hopefully I will have some time to come back and do some more work later. I moved the history section to a sub-article because it was too long but the summary I left behind is probably too short. I also moved the etymology section to an inset so it doesn't interrupt the flow of the article. I hope this helps. I also don't entirely agree with most of Taxman's points (specifically 1, 2 and 4), there is definitely room for improvement in the article and many of Taxman's points could improve the article but simply changing the article to address them specifically could make the article a lot worse. I think the trick is to think creatively about how the underlying issues Taxman raises can be solved. Many of his points are taken directly from Wikipedia's Manual of Style but Wikipedia's policy is to ignore all rules if they don't result in better encyclopaedia articles. Cedars (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please be careful when you give reviews. 1,2, and 4 are based on years of experience at WP:FAC and consensus of what makes great articles. Of course if done poorly the article would be worse, but that's true for basically any advice. I give people credit for knowing how to do it well once they know what needs to be done. - Taxman ^Talk 15:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think it may just be different perspectives. I will admit that featured article status is the last thing on my mind when I peer review an article, rather I'm thinking how can I make this article easier to read? I feel a little cheated that you did not seem to consider my experience (around four years' worth) or my previous reviews (there are many) when writing the above comment. Cedars (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)